• There seems to be an up tick in Political commentary in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site we know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religiours commentary out of the fourms.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politicion will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment amoung members. It is a poison to the community. We apprciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Next from Lionheart Creations; Boeing 797 Blended Wing

Bjoern said:
...The key point is not thinking in metal anymore.
Click to expand...
We are not talking material science as a cure here:
Even a piece of pure gold carbon composite future material with high tensile strength is best employed in spherical/cylindrical form.
Any other shape will require more of it, it's just how it is, and you can't wish it away.
This weighs more, and costs more.

There needs to be a really good design tradeoff in some other part of the project for this to be justified.
I was wondering, for the BW concept, what it might be.

Edit: Reading SB's post above, the BW shape sounds ever more attractive as a bomber maybe, or a cargo plane...look forward to a UPS paint on this one!
 
SkippyBing said:
...
Click to expand...

Very interesting.



Wing_Z said:
We are not talking material science as a cure here:
Even a piece of pure gold carbon composite future material with high tensile strength is best employed in spherical/cylindrical form.
Any other shape will require more of it, it's just how it is, and you can't wish it away.
This weighs more, and costs more.
Click to expand...

But if it still achieves to weigh less in total, despite a more complicated form, than an aluminium tube I'd vote it as an evolution and complete succes.

Material science *is* the cure!
It has been a cure for a long time and it will be a cure in hundereds of years.
 
Bjoern said:
...But if it still achieves to weigh less in total, despite a more complicated form, than an aluminium tube I'd vote it as an evolution and complete succes...
Click to expand...
Tell you what...you go off and build yours in a funny and uneconomical shape using clever material science (but still lighter than aluminium) and I'll build one in the strongest and most economical shape using the same material science (lighter and stronger then yours, and a whole lot lighter than aluminium) and then we'll go off to the marketplace, and ...

But I see I'm not really getting through here.
Let's get back to the topic:
I can't wait to have some fun with Lionheart's fantasy Boeing, and blowing off some of those old 21st century dinosaurs ;)
 
there are so many examples of certitude in science over our developmental history that you cant seriously say that something is 'impossible' - surpassing the speed of sound in a man made vehicle was once considered impossible - as was manned, powered flight before that.

Certainly as we become more enlightened in science - we feel like we have a better foothold on what might or might not be possible - or practical...but no one can stand at this point in our scientific and technological position and say empirically - 'that is not possible'

to say 'that is not possible today' is another story...but I daresay it is a short story as our power to compute factors and elements and processes multiplies exponentially from month to month...instead of decade to decade - as it once was.
 
All I have to say after listening to all the scientists, is, carry on Mr. Ortis. I will look forward to flying this concept, practical or not!

Cheers, Paul
 
PutPut said:
All I have to say after listening to all the scientists, is, carry on Mr. Ortis. I will look forward to flying this concept, practical or not!

Cheers, Paul
Click to expand...

Thanks Paul. :ernae:


I wish I could create planes as fast as you Sir. You have an entire airforce of models now. Some real classic exotics.



Bill
 
Wing_Z said:
Tell you what...you go off and build yours in a funny and uneconomical shape using clever material science (but still lighter than aluminium) and I'll build one in the strongest and most economical shape using the same material science (lighter and stronger then yours, and a whole lot lighter than aluminium) and then we'll go off to the marketplace, and ...
Click to expand...

That's what Airbus said.


Carbon fibre and other composites are the future. Period.
 
That's what Airbus said.


Carbon fibre and other composites are the future. Period.
Click to expand...

That's not what he's saying. He's saying if you build a pressure vessel in a sub-optimal shape in any material, it's going to be heavier than an optimally shaped pressure vessel in the same material.

In other words if you use the same composites to build a tube as whatever shape you want to use, the tube will be lighter.
 
SkippyBing said:
That's not what he's saying. He's saying if you build a pressure vessel in a sub-optimal shape in any material, it's going to be heavier than an optimally shaped pressure vessel in the same material.

In other words if you use the same composites to build a tube as whatever shape you want to use, the tube will be lighter.
Click to expand...

*Sigh*


Never mind...
 
agreed - it would be heavier because it would take more material to create an oblong pressurized area than a perfectly cylindrical one - but then he goes on to say that by being heavier that it would be impractical at best and a dangerous catastrophic failure looking for a place to happen in the worst case..

but A BwB airframe is virtually ALL lift...compared to a conventional tubeliner - so the weight penalty must be considered in a different context.

Naturally - on the ground the extra weight would be a concern WrT reinforced concrete taxiways and runways but in the air less so.

To say empirically that a BwB could never be used properly as an airliner is not accurate...

To say empirically that it could not have an unconventional oblong or oblique pressurized bladder that would be as dependable and reliable as a rigid aluminum cylinder is defeatist and unlikely..

To say that flying as a passenger in such an open and unconventional arrangement would be uncomfortable would be correct only if the flight profile and turn bank limits were left as they are for a conventional airliner - which is unlikely.

never say never - you get proven wrong far more often than right
 
Actually, discussing technical stuff here is plain silly...seems very few listen to what the other guy says, anyway.
Also, nobody here is qualified to say what design parameters drive the Boeing design.
Come to think of it, nor is Boeing, otherwise they wouldn't be spending the money flying a subscale model around!

In the wonderful world of flight simulation however, many things are possible.
I think Bill is doing this because there is a chance to design an amazing futuristic aircraft interior... ;)
Wouldn't it be great to have an ice rink, right there in the middle bit? :d
 
and all I know is that on every A&P forum or discussion board I've seen where the Boeing BwB is being talked about- Airbus fans get their panties in a bunch.

so far it is merely a concept that has gotten to the material testing stage and scale model characteristics evaluation phase of development

biggerbetter.jpg


as to cargo carrying capacity - Boeing has a new airship design that they are developing..

as is MAS

mas.jpg



masmountain.jpg
 
Just a quick note regarding the engineering. All aircraft are studies in trade-offs. Some areas are more optimized than others, based on their impact on the overall design. Most of the BWB designs I've seen use the "multi-bubble", think of it has tubes glued together, side by side, in the interior structure for the pressure vessel. Is it as optimum as the pure tube for a pressure vessel? No. But it doesn't need to be, as all of the BWB's advantages outweigh this aspect of the design. That's what it really comes down to; when you add up all the advantages and disadvantages of a particular design, do you gain anything, say compared to a conventional design. So far, all the research on the BWB design does indicate it will offer better performance than a conventional design. Of course, they don't have all of the solutions yet, which is why they are still doing research.

However, that isn't to say there aren't other advanced solutions as well. NASA just performed a study of advanced airliners, with many major aircraft manufacturers and what's been show is quite interesting. Here are a couple of articles for you guys to check out, I think you'll enjoy them.

Airliners in 2030: Subsonic Challenges

Airliners in 2030: Supersonic Dreams

Note: When at those links, make sure you download the PDF files of the actual studies that show up as links, for some good info on the designs and their performance.
 
welll, considering Boeings vision for the dreamliner and its ability to do weird hings with lighting, i wouldnt put it past these guys to do something really bizarre and make the entire cabin an array of led's displaying the outside world ( like you werent even in the plane, just flying ).. Much like the city of Las Vegas did.. Still, i believe i agree.. no windows means it isnt good for passengers. The only way I can overcome my fear of flying is to sit next to a window and look out it till we land ( i'm secretly holding the plane in the sky you see .. ). This is definately more of a cargo type design.. with the losses in revenue from fewer people flying, my bet is on NASA's air taxi idea.. small four passenger planes automatically routed to their destination and controlled by computer..
 
Some more work in progress screenshots.

This has the Tasman Airways VA skins, who I am doing the model for.

4772931871_323424d429_b.jpg


4772931941_13d6099cf0_b.jpg


4773571284_89a4ffd884_b.jpg


4772931979_80daa9687b_b.jpg


4772931905_3e480671c8_b.jpg


4772931831_a1a96dd74d_b.jpg


4772931679_3bc1de1d6c_b.jpg



She is really sleek looking, aside from the giant turbofans hanging off her tail. I wonder what the 2/3rds model Refueler will look like.


Bill
 
SADT said:
Hi Bill,

Hows the panel coming along?
Click to expand...

Its getting there. Not doing a fully functional VC panel, more of a 2D panel with some working VC panel screens and mostly cosmetics in the VC. The freeware will not be heavy with VC detail. (I have to finish the WT-9 Dynamic for the factory soon). Mainly this is to create a BWB for my buddies VA which usually use 2D panels anyway. When I can get a chance, I can come back and do some serious VC work on this giant beauty.
 
With the antennas on the fuselage and the cockpit windows it looks a bit like some sort of alien stingray-like fish. Slightly creepy. :d
 
Nice work Bill:applause:

Are the passenger windows painted or modelled? (just thinking about repaints ;))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top